Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

krou writes "State-run news agency Xinhua has attacked what it calls Google's 'intricate ties with the US government' amongst its high level officials, claiming that it's 'an open secret that some security experts in the Pentagon are from Google.' They have also accused the company of trying to change Chinese society by imposing American values on it. Xinhua said that 'One company's ambition to change China's internet rules will only prove to be ridiculous.' Google has denied the claims. Google spokeswoman Jessica Powell said that 'The decision to review our business in China was entirely Google's and Google's alone.'"

that while some Internet users in certain Western countries may see the Internet as something which exists independently of society and is merely a medium through which two individuals may communicate, from the Chinese POV it is a part of society and therefore allowed to be controlled.

To be totally honest, I agree with the Chinese POV, since $People \in Society$ and $Internetusers \subset Society$.

I disagree with that POV. The internet is its own society which is free from cultural and geological borders. That's the power of the Internet. The fact that EVERYONE is equal, irregardless of their location, political beliefs, language, religion, etc, etc, etc makes it it's own society. When a country tries to limit or control the internet, it is either because they don't understand it, or they fear it. This is especially true in cultures of control such as China and Iran. They are afraid of the internet, because it gives people access to a truly free society. The failure here is that almost no government believes that the Internet is a sovereign society.

I disagree with that POV. The internet is its own society which is free from cultural and geological borders. That's the power of the Internet. The fact that EVERYONE is equal, irregardless of their location, political beliefs, language, religion, etc, etc, etc makes it it's own society. When a country tries to limit or control the internet, it is either because they don't understand it, or they fear it. This is especially true in cultures of control such as China and Iran. They are afraid of the internet, because it gives people access to a truly free society. The failure here is that almost no government believes that the Internet is a sovereign society.

Is this why US law like DMCA is imposed to me even while I don't live in US? Google removes results based on DMCA notices on all of their sites, not just google.com.

China tries to control it's own Internet. USA tries to control the whole Internet. Which one is worse?

The point is that both countries have their own view on what is allowed and what is not. The difference is that China only restricts it inside it's own country, while US tries to enforce their view all over the world (with ACTA too). It maybe doesn't make it OK, but in my view it's still a lot better when you aren't trying to enforce your views to people of other countries.

Google isn't the internet. Google is a US company, and it's subject to US laws. Nobody is stopping US citizens from visiting websites run by non-US companies, which would not be subject to US laws. In China, however, you would simply be prevented from viewing any site that was not controlled (explicitly, by law, or by some other agreement) by the Chinese government.

The US is trying to control the world through treaties and trade agreements, not by web censorship.

If you think Google takes down websites then you are sadly mistaken. They are a search engine. Pulling a site from a privately owned and operated search engine is not the same thing as "taking down a website". It is not like every website has a god given right to be listed on Google. You violate Google's terms, and they are free to yank your site from their listings. Google is a company, they are not an official internationally sanctioned Internet authority.

Despite the internet being community without boundaries, each individual is still part of a physical, bounded community, and is thus still subject to the physical community's rules, despite what many people seem to think.

China tries to control it's own Internet. USA tries to control the whole Internet. Which one is worse?

First of all, the US is not trying to "control the internet". All it is doing (albeit with a heavy hand at the expense of consumers), is to control certain commercial transactions that, arguably, skirt the law. Stopping someone from downloading copies of a U2 album that they in no way paid for is in no way the same thing as trying to stop someone from reading about the Tienanmen Square protests or sending emails about democracy. How can you compare the two?

other people have morals different from yours in which copyright (and enforcing it) is immoral

What? Who in the world believes that copyrighting one's own work is immoral? I know people who think the laws favor copyright holders too much, but I've never met someone who thinks copyright laws are inherently "immoral".

What morality would disallow the creator of an original creation from controlling how that creation is distributed? Would you attempt to enforce such a principle by demanding that artists immediately publish everything they create without compensation? And even if you believe that it

But Google also maintains its own offices in many other countries. Should they work under US law or the local law? What about their websites, like google.se? Wouldn't it make more sense if the local Google companies would work under those countries laws?

"China tries to control it's own Internet. USA tries to control the whole Internet. Which one is worse?"Interesting comparison.I don't like the DMCA or the new treaty that Hollywood is getting the US government to push through. I think in this case the US government is putting the interests of certain companies over the rights of it's citizens.See the difference? I can criticize the US government without fear of them coming to my house.

Not really. US law like DMCA is imposed on ~sites run by US individuals or companies~, who are subject to US law. DMCA doesn't apply to a sit running elsewhere. But it so happens that most popular sites are based in the US, or run by US companies (e.g. Google).

Having said that, I agree that it is irritating. I particularly love the constant "sorry, this content is not available outside the US!" on Hulu/Pandora/many YouTube vids/etc/etc.

Don't hold your breath. They said the same thing about the outdated US drug laws - "When all the Baby Boomers take charge, we will have a sensible drug policy in the US." Well, they have and I am still waiting. Seems the more things change the more they stay the same.

Isn't Xinhua correct in this though? There's no lies - Google tried to change Chinese society and bring American values in it, just like is done in Iraq but only with military.

This is nothing new, the same has been done with Hollywood and other mass culture for long time. Just play Civilization - you can spread your culture and slowly your enemies cities will want to join you.

Not really. Xhinhua is politicizing the situation where Google is attempting to receive protection from it OWN government when being intruded upon. Why is it a bad thing for Google to ask NSA for security assistance when their high profile account is being hacked with possible traces to the Chinese government? I am not saying Chinese government has a hand in it but the suspicion should warrant Google to seek governmental help to pin point the issue and prevent additional attack from happening.

Let's not forget Google is a US registered company with headquarter in California. Their stock is listed in US stock exchange. They pay taxes to US government. Seeking help and protection from your own government is well within their rights as a US company.

Further I don't think China has any leg on the issue either since they actively help their own industries and private companies with ties. It's all just a Publicity Stunt to keep its own citizen from sympathizing Google by playing a patriotic card.

Isn't Xinhua correct in this though? There's no lies - Google tried to change Chinese society and bring American values in it, just like is done in Iraq but only with military.

Google did no such thing. Google provides a service and China wants to restrict it. Furthermore, it wants Google to take on the responsibility of restricting what China wants restricted. Even if the people at Google were comfortable with the restrictions, which they have a right not to be, the cost to them of trying to enforce the Chinese government's rules is prohibitive. Makes it overall a bit stupid for Google to agree to anything.

The fact that society (including the internet) can be controlled and is controlled is no excuse for western companies to cooperate with the Chinese version of control.I would go as far as to say a company that wants to be credible to their western customers can't possibly be compliant with present day Chinese restrictions re. freedom of information.It looks to me Google finds it difficult to console their 'Do no Evil' morality with the Chinese instructions for complete government control.

so let me get this straight: google, which is located in the us, is being complained about for having connections in the US? And this is coming from the chinese news, which is located in china, and has connections with China? ror.

that while some Internet users in certain Western countries may see the Internet as something which exists independently of society and is merely a medium through which two individuals may communicate, from the Chinese POV it is a part of society and therefore allowed to be controlled.

To be totally honest, I agree with the Chinese POV, since $People \in Society$ and $Internetusers \subset Society$.

If you are agreeing with Chinese POV, why are you posting as AC? Don't you want to be monitored and controlled and being praised to be patriotic? The simple fact is that everyone online in China are subject to searches and lack of privacy. Any government or any special interest groups outside of the government with enough favors with the government can find you and harrass you. You have no protection when attempting to raise a different voice.

Of course Google is trying to impose "American Values" on China. As it stands, they can't gain enough power to control things there. If China becomes more like America, then Google (and other companies) will have a bigger say in the government, and will be able to make more money.

Of course Google is trying to impose "American Values" on China. As it stands, they can't gain enough power to control things there. If China becomes more like America, then Google (and other companies) will have a bigger say in the government, and will be able to make more money.

Yes, obviously. It can't possibly have anything to do with Google's value coming from allowing people access to information and Chinese government's power coming from denying people access to information. Clearly, this is not about Chinese government wanting to keep its Ministry of Truth running and Google being a threat to that, but instead it's about Google trying to control Chinese government.

I guess every puppetmaster's worst nightmare is for the strings to get cut...

Of course Google is trying to impose "American Values" on China. As it stands, they can't gain enough power to control things there. If China becomes more like America, then Google (and other companies) will have a bigger say in the government, and will be able to make more money.

Yes, obviously. It can't possibly have anything to do with Google's value coming from allowing people access to information and Chinese government's power coming from denying people access to information.

Yes, Google's value comes from allowing people access to information. And their revenue comes from the ads they show. And folks buy ads on Google because of the eyes they bring. And Google's got lots of eyes on its page because of its value.

So of course they're interested in changing Chinese culture, as much as possible, to earn themselves more money.

Um, no. They're undermining Chinese dictatorship's ability to keep its people in the dark. It has nothing to do with culture and everything to do with someone being scared of losing his power.

We here in the West think that free and open access to information is a good thing, so we view Google's actions as altruistic to a certain degree. In China, free and open access to information is viewed as d

Regardless of that... I doubt that, as a company, Google really cares about Chinese politics as an abstract. What they care about, as a company, is making money. Part of that means maintaining an image, but mostly it means being able to do what they set out to do, which is provide some services in exchange for money. Where Google does care about Chinese politics is in the specific: if the Chinese government insists on having Google censor resul

Google only ever had one small bit of leverage when negotiating with China : Chinese citizens know that Google is more legit & honest than Badu. We're totally unsurprised that Chia spins away this leverage.

Didn't the Chinese call Tibet a dictatorial theocracy before they invaded^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hliberated it ?

Calling for China to cease their occupation and Chinesification of Tibet doesn't make the above claim untrue. Religious rule [michaelparenti.org] and serfdom [wikipedia.org] doesn't exactly make it good place even before the occupation. That the current situation is bad, doesn't make the past good.

No, of course it doesn't. But if you go by the Wilsonian Doctrine, the Tibetans were a linguistically and ethnically separate people who had experienced only very brief interludes of meaningful Chinese rule prior to the 1950 invasion, certainly deserved their own state. It would be like Russia trying to retake Poland because, over the centuries, it's managed to exert its control over large parts of the area at various periods.

Xinhua is state run, so accusing a google of being a puppet of the government is kind of silly. Anyways, Chinese propaganda used to be a lot like the USSR's Pravda or KNCA [kcna.co.jp] today, but it's not quite that extreme anymore. That probably makes it more effective. I mean, don't people begin to catch on after 50 years of weekly "the west will experience nuclear armageddon at our hands" rants?

"The matchless fighting spirit of the leader, who continued the forced march of high intensity to vibrant hard-fought fields for an upsurge throughout the year, burning his heart with noble love of his country and fellow people, gave free rein to the mental strength of all the service personnel and people and worked world-startling miracles across the country." -- KCNA, http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2010/201001/news01/20100101-08ee.html [kcna.co.jp]

The largest source of intelligence has nothing to do with covert activity or super secret spy satellites. It has to do with general information that is easy for anyone to get and always has been. It's even more true with the Internet now.

Reminds me of that bit in Doctor Strangelove where the Russian ambassador says he knew that the U.S. was working on a doomsday weapon and when Muffley denies it he says his source was the New York Times.

You know, I wish I 1) spoke some variant of Chinese and 2) knew more about Chinese media outlets. I wrote a journal post [slashdot.org] about this situation back when it was developing and tried to find a diverse viewpoint in Chinese news related to Google's ultimatum. It turned out to be more humorous and an exercise in futility than anything else. Does anyone who speaks the language know of a 'subversive' news source out of China? Or anything at all offering balanced and multiple views in the reporting? All I see is multiple sources looking like they are offering you unbiased news when, in fact, they are regurgitating something to you that is within a government approved standard deviation of the government approved message.

Really, really sad. Also a stark reminder of how thankful I should be of the diversity of our press in the United States no matter how sorry it may look at times...

NPR did a couple of interviews with Chinese bloggers and internet publishers. They were fighting for less Chinese Government restrictions, but even they started one sentence with: "Obviously, the Government needs to protect some people from dangerous information, but..." I haven't heard many native Chinese express the belief that a completely Government-unfiltered communications system is a fundamental right or even something that's unquestionably a good thing on the balance. It's those kinds of attitude

Ah Slashdot, where the genuine request for more information and recognition of your own shortcomings is met only with the satisfying sting of childish name calling. It makes me a 'gawking moron' to ask if anyone knows how I could find out more about genuine news in a country designed to filter out genuine news? Well, I'm kind of sick and tired of people telling me to ignore China.

I was hoping I'd find more information resources similar to Letter from China [newyorker.com] except hopefully from a Chinese native citiz

Google is behaving far more ethically than the State Department. If they were really Pentagon puppets, they'd be more concerned with trying to add 2% to the value of the Yuan rather than with trivial little things like free speech and political freedom.

Lets not lose track of reality here. Google likely doesnt give a shit about whether china is free or not any more than the rest of us do, they're really trying to leverage business success against an incredibly massive weight of public opinion and a slightly less massive though largely unseen morass of law and regulations.

What they need to learn is that we don't have, or need, propaganda machines

Sure, you do. The biggest example would be Fox News [wikipedia.org]. It might not be a government propaganda machine (at least not since Bush left), but it still is a very politicized, extreme (at least for us Europeans) news outlet reporting news the way Murdoch wants.

Italy is even worse off, with the prime minister owning all the major private TV channels and now influencing the state run ones too...

Because this is what China is telling their people. In China all press is government controlled. Media is used to control society (good thing that could never, ever happen in the USA, no all our media is unbiased except for that one EEEEVIL TV station called Fox) and China knows it. To us, the story is China broke into Google.com and spraypainted "China Rul3z!" all over human rights activists email accounts. Google is rightly angry about this and is pulling out of China in response.

While it would not at all surprise me if the relationship between aspects of the US intelligence apparatus and aspects of google is rather cozy(they'd merely be joining the long list of data broker companies for which that is true*cough* ChoicePoint, *cough* Acxiom, *cough*AT&T); it takes real chutzpah for a country where enterprises owned outright by the state and/or military are common, standard practice, to start moralizing about the shady and nebulous ties between google and America's spook infestation.

it takes real chutzpah for a country where enterprises owned outright by the state and/or military are common, standard practice, to start moralizing about the shady and nebulous ties between google and America's spook infestation.

What's the Chinese equivalent of chutzpah? I'm imagining instead of a mindset "my balls are huge" it's more like "I can't possibly be wrong".

A US-based company, full of US citizens, acting to further the interests of the US. No shit Sherlock!

Don't worry China. As soon as you become enough of a consumer nation that Google's advertising-based model is overwhelmingly profitable for them in China, they'll have to bow to their stockholders, who won't be able to stop from salivating over your billions of consumers.

Until then, your whining makes us all feel good about ourselves, as we all secretly fear we're getting the same propoganda from our own gov

The best propaganda is based on truth. Of course Google wants to impose American values on the world - Sergey Brin is a US immigrant who moved to America precisely because he thinks American values are a good thing. Google publicly asked the NSA for help securing its network, so the 'ties' between Google and US intelligence are not exactly secret and, given that the NSA and Google are the two largest employers of data mining specialists in the USA, it wouldn't be at all surprising if both employ quite a

I'm not sure Google is actively working to further the interests of the US. Instead, Chinese leadership is incapable of appreciating the differences between US policy, US culture, and plain ole' innate freedoms. Chinese leadership sees everything through a Han cultural perspective, with everyone not Han is either a strong barbarian intent upon conquering China or a weak barbarian who should be conquered by China.

If one company's ambition change China's internet rules will only prove to be ridiculous, why is a China government run news agency so frantically issuing statements on the issue?

It is just one company, right? In theory they shouldn't even be taking notice...

If they had actually expected to come out fully unscathed from this, they would have not even blinked.

China's censorship system had worked so far only because the Chinese always had options/alternatives when blocked from sites containing "dangerous ideas". The Chinese public simply accepted the government explanation. But Google, as the world's leading search engine, is something that is pretty much an inherent part of internet. Blocking a valuable internet resource requires much more rationalization, which is exactly what has the Chinese government sweating. It will be much harder to sell to the internet-using Chinese public. As such, this actually can lead to a relaxing of censorship in China. If not, it will lead to a realization on the part of Chinese public as to how they are actually visibly suffering by tolerating a non-democratic fascist state. Both are the first baby steps on the road to self-determination and freedom for the people in China.

Sadly, the said Chinese government is banking on having an alternative in competing search engines such as that of Microsoft. If Microsoft fails to follow Google's example, it will now actually be actively working to keep the seeds of democracy out of China.

Not that Microsoft, would be interested in anything apart from its profit line, considering it doesn't really believes in any kind of business ethics.

Yes, we all love to hate the chinese. But there's some truth in there. The US is aggressively exporting its values and believes to the entire world, and it isn't asking if anyone wants it. Hollywood is the biggest propaganda machine ever, far more subtle and effective than any Nazi or Soviet Russian government efforts. And yes, Google is part of a culture as much as it is a company, and is bringing that culture to the world.

Most of the world is eating it up. A lot of people welcome it. Few of them made a conscious decision among alternatives on the matter of culture and spirit.

I'm not debating if the US culture is "good" or "bad" here, just stating the fact that the amount of culture that is in the american way of doing business is seldom reflected.

If US does the right thing, even for selfish motives, how does that make the said "right thing" to be wrong?

Since when did the right to self-determination, freedom of expression and thought, freedom to not be oppressed by a fascist state, become wrong?

Your argument is like saying "Oh my god, that guy who pushed that child out of the way of a speeding car, is reputed to be a bully. That child should not have been saved by him! How can you guys accept this?".

Since when did the right to self-determination, freedom of expression and thought, freedom to not be oppressed by a fascist state, become wrong?

That only works if you believe morals are universal. In truth, we know that it's relative. You can look at how relative it is without leaving the US: just look at the health care issue. You have the people who say that it's immoral to let people who can't afford health insurance to go without. On the other side you also have the people who say it's immoral to be forced to pay the costs for others, when they may not be taking care of their own bodies and thus being at a higher health risk then their nei

Please explain how Tim Burton and Kristen Stewart represent the US government. This should be a good one. For inspiration, try Fars or www.kcna.co.jp, they tell the same story you do. Bonus points for lumping Jim Carrey in with the Nazis and Communists.

Most of the world is eating it up. A lot of people welcome it. Few of them made a conscious decision among alternatives on the matter of culture and spirit.

I said to a friend of 40 years running two days ago that this is not my America anymore. Complacency has led to political leadership where not long ago, t-shirts were seen in New York City saying, "Ever think you'd miss Nixon?" - and our cultural values have death spiraled into Western music being typified by Britney Spears, movies being typified by Transformers and our intellectual degradation is best summed up by the observation that there is actually a debate raging between evolution and creationism/ID.

The US government has done many awful and unjust things but it is a beacon of human rights when compared to the Peoples Republic of China.

What's happens to US citizens when they criticize the US government? What happens to Chinese citizens when they criticize the current government of China?

An honest answer to this test should quiet the post we will see here today. Somebody is going to apologize for the atrocities of the Chinese government by saying that the US government is no better. I can criticize both the US government and the Chinese government. I don't fear any reprisal from the US government for that criticism. Chinese citizens can have their lives taken away or be imprisoned for little more than a charge of 'creating instability'.

"I don't fear any reprisal from the US government for that criticism."

That is a bit of a stretch, considering that critics of US foreign policy have found themselves unable to board airplanes. Sure, it is not as bad as what happens in China, but let's not act like the US is all roses and that criticism of the government goes unpunished. Only a few years ago, my friends were imprisoned for peacefully protesting the RNC in New York. Like I said, not as bad as China, but certainly nothing close to ideal.

Indeed I noticed that as well. It's bizarre that any post than isn't openly hostile to the United States is somehow deemed shilling or pro-US. The OP was right comparing the imperfect somewhat broken US system to the hopelessly corrupt- dare I say evil PRC stance- is just insane.

That's the point though, the government can't stand any business that offers up even token resistance to their control. Google is smart enough not to let some penny-ante bureaucrats mess with them, and as a result they're basically getting kicked out of the country.

I'm not intending to be dismissive. I actually don't understand why this is even news.

We're following the Google VS China story.

Google goes into china, china says out with the pr0n and the "free tibet" crap or no deal, google says ok. People here say google is turning evil, not giving china any pr0n. Google says china hacks google looking for people who want to free tibet, china says nah-huh, google just wanna make china look at 2 girls one cup and goatse. Google says they're gonna take their ball and go home.

And now we're at "China says google is trying to make china gay for the USA".

China owns the playing field and sets the rules for that playing field. Google has attempted to play in China's playground but cannot survive within the constraint of its rules. It has exhausted all efforts to make adjustments and compromises but China will have none of it. Google has two options -- change the way it does business or leave. These options are rather similar to China's options -- allow changes in the way it deals with business or make them leave. It doesn't have to be an emotionally or politically charged problem at all.

Google's options are limited. Leaving is clearly the last resort and it seems that they are taking that one. China is keeping its playground, but Google is taking the ball back home.

I watched an interesting show on how Google operates and their conclusion was that Google's business is based on "Trust". Unlike many organizations, Google is in business because we trust that they will work and operate to keep our data as safe as they can. It is something that a vast majority of the public including myself takes for granted because so far they haven't messed up badly. According to Google, China was caught hacking their systems, stealing IP and personal user data. If this keeps going on the way it does, then Google can't keep the trust of the public and it might mean the downfall of their company. (I can't use Google because China keeps hacking in and stealing my data.)

Originally Google went into China because when you really think about it, filtering users from content does not betray this idea of "Trust". Your data is still safe but China stepped over the line when they started hacking into Google.

The best way for Google to leave China which is likely what they are now planning to do is to drop the filtering. This generates good will with the remaining users. China is correct in that Google is pushing Western ideals however in many ways this is China's fault to begin with. If China hadn't hacked Google to begin with this whole mess would not have started.

I personally don't see a huge problem with China filtering searches. It's their own country and their own rules. Admittedly this goes against freedom of speech (a democratic idea) but China's pretty far from a democracy. Hopefully someday, their public will realize that it is something valuable enough to fight for but for now it doesn't seem to be the case. However hacking your business partner is far from acceptable.

Google's entire business model relies on the free internet society that the US has helped build. If the internet started in Iran, it wouldn't be what it is today. To say a US company with a business model based on internet freedom has a US bias is quite the waste of breath.

This is simply a case of a company embracing like-minded groups and distancing its threats.

Of course the Chinese authorities are right. It is ridiculous that Google could think to change China's Internet rules. But it's still a battle worth fighting. 300 Spartans and the other Greek allies didn't actually stop the Persians from invading Greece, but I don't think anyone would call the Battle of Thermopylae ridiculous. Sometimes a stroke of the symbolic sword can be as powerful as a real one.

The Chinese government *wants* American values, but cafeteria style. They want free exchange of information so long as it is information leaving America and entering China. They don't want information leaving China or worse yet circulating within China. The Chinese government wants America to be open and pursue classical liberal trade policy while it remains closed and pursues mercantilist policies. It wants America to be true to its respect of sovereign nations, but to forget about every individual's sovereignty over his own opinions. It demands the American not interfere in free markets while the Peoples Liberation Army operates businesses and party official parlay their connections into business wealth.

China has rejected the extreme form of socialism it was founded on, but it has not adopted the enlightened capitalism of Europe and America. It has recreatd the caricature of American capitalism portrayed in its own propaganda: a system in which corrupt wealthy men pull the strings of corrupt government.

It's no wonder they don't want American values: those values empower the working class.

Bah. As if in the US's case the "country" has anything to say about it.
China has some notion of "country" and keeps its companies aware of it. The US is owned lock, stock and barrel by corporations who throw around terms like country and patriotism when it is convenient for them - usually when they need some cannon fodder and tax payer funding to defend or acquire what is in their corporate interest.

That's not what is happening here. What's really happening is that the last 12 years of giving the rich tax breaks and giving them free money has caused them to be even more greedy. Instead of reinvesting that money in America, they fired all their American workers and closed down the American factories and opened new ones in China. They started off saying that only the low-skilled work will be moved, to where they are now moving engineering and higher level skills. And they are trying to hide that they are doing this. Just look at IBM recently saying that they will stop reporting employee levels by country. The rich don't care if they destablize America and get a little dirty working with a dictatorship because the were already dirty making their money in the US. The movement of jobs doesn't indicate that people don't care about these jobs, it shows that the rich have no allegance to any country and are killing America for greed. Plain and simple.

If you have a 401K, stocks, or any other investment account then you might want to reread your statement with "me" instead of "them". The fact is most middle-class Americans have investments in these mega-corporations and profit from their "greed".

I would propose that in fact, it is this ever more difficult quest to show stock-holder gains that lead to these things that you hate so much. However if a company doesn't do this things, then the stockholders sue saying that the CEO's were not doing their best

> you might want to reread your statement with "me" instead of "them".

Most people do. Here is what they see about financial holdings in the US:

Top 1% owns 43%

Next 19% owns 50%

Bottom 80% owns 7%

Most people see no "me" in those statements.

> However if a company doesn't do this things, then the stockholders sue saying that the CEO's were not doing their best to maximize profits.

A situation which could be remedied by changes to some laws. More importantly would be getting Wall Street off companies backs so they can plan more than 3 months out. The latter has less to do maximizing corporate profits than the Street's own interests, profits, and bonuses.